How This Investment Firm Hopes to Revolutionize Litigation in America
Ropes & Gray: Advantages of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Post-Grant Insights: The Significance of a Three-Judge Panel
IP|Trend: The Importance of Consumer Surveys in Patent Litigation
Post-Grant Insights: The Need for Seamless Coordination of District Court & PTAB Litigation
IP|Trend: Inter Partes Review: Is it Litigation or Something Else?
Post-Grant Insights: The Preparation and Pace of the PTAB
Controlling the Cost of Patent Litigation
Post-Grant Insights: The Impact of PTAB Appeals on the Federal Circuit
Post-Grant Insights: Key Considerations in PTAB Oral Hearings
What are the Implications of Alice v. CLS?
What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
Track One and the Patent Prosecution Highway
The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
Lessons from Nautilus v. Biosig at the Supreme Court
Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision
The Art of Communicating to a Jury
The Evolution of Patent Damages
How does the IPR Process Work?
Interpartes Review: Is it Right for You?
Earlier this year, in Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court set out guidelines for determining whether patents claiming software and hardware features are statutorily eligible for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Following...more
On November 17, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. medac Pharma Inc. and medac GmbH, ruled in favor of Ropes & Gray client Medac and breathed new life into the “original patent”...more
The specificity required in a motion for judgment as a matter of law/directed verdict (“JMOL”) can present challenges to counsel as they argue motions under Rule 50 or its state-law equivalents. Halo Electronics, Inc. v....more
Keystone Global LLC v. Auto Essentials Inc., et al.
Case Number: 1:12-cv-09077-DLC-GWG -
Keystone alleged that Decor Essentials infringed two patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 7,866,715 (“Protective vehicle cover”) and...more
Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster -
Addressing for the first time the application of the Supreme Court decision in Octane Fitness to trademark cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a...more
In This Presentation:
• Medical device patent statistics
• Non-practicing entity (NPE) litigation
• Inter partes reexam (IPR) update
• Important litigation
– Edwards v. Medtronic
– Masimo v. Philips
(You know . . . the fairy tale about trolls.)
This summer, PwC published its 2014 Patent Litigation Study. The tagline of the study is “[a]s case volume leaps, damages continue general decline.”...more
Touchtunes Music Corp. v. Rowe International Corp., Arachnid, Inc., et al.
October 21, 2014 -
Case Number: 1:07-cv-11450-RWS -
Judge Sweet, having previously found this case to be exceptional, awarded...more
The Federal Circuit recently applied Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank to invalidate all claims of a patented method for advertising over the Internet in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2014). Like the Supreme...more
In This Presentation:
- USPTO POST-GRANT PROCEEDINGS: LESSONS LEARNED AFTER 2 YEARS
- Rationales for Denial of Petition
- Rationales for Claims Surviving Final Decision
- Considerations for Multi-Forum...more
K-40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort, Inc. -
Addressing the sufficiency of corroborating evidence to prove earlier reduction to practice, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that an inventor’s testimony regarding...more
When can a sufficient disclosure for patentability purposes nevertheless fail to adequately "describe" the claims of a patent? According to the Federal Circuit in a case issued this week, when the claims are added in a...more
Citing the Supreme Court of the United States’ Spring 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed itself and concluded that a claimed method for distributing online...more
BNB Health Grades, Inc. ("Health Grades") filed a patent infringement action against MDx Medical, Inc., d/b/a Vitals.com ("MDx"). During the litigation, Health Grades identified licensing agreements and associated systems...more
This is the second in a series of six Q&As with Baker Botts partners addressing the most significant developments in their practice areas this year, as well as their outlook for 2015. The Q&As will be posted throughout the...more
Dr. Paula Small v. Implant Direct MFG. LLC d/b/a Implant Direct, LLC -
Case Number: 1:06-cv-00683-NRB -
In 2013, defendants won summary judgment on two dental implant patents. One patent was found invalid...more
Venture Corp. v. Barrett, 2014 WL 5305575 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014).
In this patent case, the defendant moved to compel identifying information after the parties reached an impasse regarding how responsive information...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Pharmadax USA, Inc. et al. 1:14-cv-07105; filed November 3, 2014 in the...more
In a recent decision in the US (Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.), a company was found liable for indirect patent infringement even though the infringing features of its product were disabled when the...more
In its third opinion reviewing the same district court decision, the Federal Circuit this time affirmed the district court’s grant of WildTangent’s motion to dismiss Ultramercial’s patent infringement complaint because the...more
In its most recent decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, the Federal Circuit finally concluded that the claims-at-issue do not cover patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This comes after two prior...more
TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc. -
In two separate but related written decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution of inter partes review of two related patents,...more
Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, and without construing the claims, the District...more
On November 3, 2014, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued an order in California Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns Inc., No. 2:13-CV-07245-MRP, 2014 WL 5661290 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) denying the defendants’ motion for summary...more
The defendants in this patent infringement action sought the production of certain billing statements of the law firm representing CleanTech. The defendants argued that the billing statements were discoverable based on their...more
Back to Top